Re: [Fwd: Re: Status for reiser support in d-i]
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 12:02, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:54:40AM +0400, Yury Umanets wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 11:49, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:32:56AM +0400, Yury Umanets wrote:
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > What I can say. Reiserfs support in parted is good enough for any linux
> > > > installer IMHO.
> > > >
> > > > It is able to do the following:
> > > > (1) reiserfs create.
> > > > (2) reiserfs destroy :)
> > > > (3) reiserfs resize
> > > > (4) reiserfs copy
> > > > (5) reiserfs move
> > > >
> > > > Actually it is based on progsreiserfs (libreiserfs) and it is able to do
> > > > much more the operations listed above (journal tuning, relocating, etc),
> > > > but parted does not have interface for this yet. It considers supported
> > > > filesystems as non-journaling ones.
> > >
> > > Mmm, interesting. As i am currently doing parted upstream work, i may be
> > > willing to look into this nextishly.
> > >
> > > > I guess debian folks probably do not want to use libparted (and reiserfs
> > > > with it) because it is needed to rewrite some parts of installer. Or
> > > > reiserfs is not good enough for debian installer.
> > >
> > > Parted will be needed anyway on some of the debian supported
> > > architectures, i plan to use it on powerpc for the pegasos boxes, and
> > > probably the apus guys will want to use it already.
> >
> > >
> > > I think there is already a graphical libparted installer which has
> > > integration problems,
> > what kind of problems?
>
> I don't really know, callback problems from what i hear, and that a
> graphical parted does not integrate well with the debconf way of doing
> things.
Ah, I see. But I guess, it is not big deal. Parted it flexible enough.
>
> > > but there should be no problem at least to use
> > > parted standalone in place of cfdisk.
> >
> > > But then, parted is less user
> > > friendly than cfdisk.
> > This is disputable question actually :) Some people like prated much
> > more then cfdisk.
>
> Well, sure, but as it will be used for the end user, a cfdisk like
> thingy would be better suited.
okay, probably cfdisk's interface is liked more by end users. But this
mean, that somebody should improve parted interface (ncurses, etc) :)
Reply to: